Prerogative

In Chapters 11 and 12 Locke describes how the executive must be constantly active, while the legislative does not need to be constantly working because it is not constantly necessary for new laws to be formed. He seems to think that prerogative can be used when the laws are not up to date in order to further the good of the public. Prerogative is defined as follows: "This power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is called prerogative" (p 330). Given that the legislature is not always in power, this may seem good, but executives do not always act in the best interests of the people. For this situation, Locke says that only the heavens can judge if this power of prerogative is being used correctly. "between an executive power in being, with such a prerogative, and a legislative that depends upon his will for their convening, there can be no judge on earth" (p 332). I found this very surprising, given that he gave the people power to dismiss the legislature. The question that immediately came to mind after reading this was; does the good that could come from this power outweigh the damage it could do? In corrupt executive hands this power seems incredibly dangerous. On the other hand, it also seems safe to assume that at times actions should be taken for the public good that go against the law or are in an area not defined by the law. Would you want an executive to have this power? 

 The first example that came to mind personally was the monitoring of phone calls and emails by the NSA during the George W Bush administration without first obtaining the correct paper work from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I know little about this subject, but remember it being of concern to people at the time. Does this seem like a case of prerogative, and was it truly for the public good? Can you think of other examples?